对此大概已有 70 年成熟的判例法了。作为入门读物，可以读读《自由的技术》（Technologies of Freedom）。（https://www.amazon.com/Technologies-Freedom-Belknap-Press-It...）话虽如此，在何处以及如何适用公共承运人（common carrier）这一概念当然是有争议的，这也正是整个网络中立性争论的根源。……
There is about 70 years of established case law on this. For a primer, read Technologies of Freedom. (https://www.amazon.com/Technologies-Freedom-Belknap-Press-It...) All that said, the concept of where and how to apply common carrier is of course controversial, hence the entire net neutrality debate.…
……《当代知识产权：法律与政策》（Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy）。牛津大学出版社。第 34 页。ISBN 978-0-19-926339-4。https://www.google.com/books?id=_Iwcn4pT0OoC&dq=contemporary... [10]：de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983). 《自由的技术》（Technologies of freedom）。哈佛大学出版社。第 14 页。ISBN 978-0-674-87233-2。https://books.google.com/books?id=BzLXGUxV4CkC&q=Areopagitic... 还有一段详细得多的段落，稍后以如下开头：……
…Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy. Oxford University Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-19-926339-4. https://www.google.com/books?id=_Iwcn4pT0OoC&dq=contemporary... [10]: de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983). Technologies of freedom. Harvard University Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-674-87233-2. https://books.google.com/books?id=BzLXGUxV4CkC&q=Areopagitic... There is another, much more detailed paragraph, which starts a bit later with:…
……版权曾在于审查制度以及保护出版商的利润。然而，美国完全是另一码事。翻开你引用的那个来源的下一页：[16]：de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983). 《自由的技术》（Technologies of freedom）。哈佛大学出版社。第 15 页。ISBN 978-0-674-87233-2。https://archive.org/details/technologiesoffr00ithi/page/15 我们能看到以下内容：美国立法者和法院拒绝了这三种滥用行为……
…copyright was in censorship and the protection of profits for publishers. However, the US is an entirely different story. Turning the page on your preferred source: [16]: de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983). Technologies of freedom. Harvard University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-674-87233-2. https://archive.org/details/technologiesoffr00ithi/page/15 We see the following: American legislators and courts rejected these three abuses…
对此大概已有 70 年成熟的判例法了。作为入门读物，可以读读《自由的技术》（Technologies of Freedom）。（https://www.amazon.com/Technologies-Freedom-Belknap-Press-It...）话虽如此，在何处以及如何适用公共承运人（common carrier）这一概念当然是有争议的，这也正是整个网络中立性争论的根源。……
There is about 70 years of established case law on this. For a primer, read Technologies of Freedom. (https://www.amazon.com/Technologies-Freedom-Belknap-Press-It...) All that said, the concept of where and how to apply common carrier is of course controversial, hence the entire net neutrality debate.…
……《当代知识产权：法律与政策》（Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy）。牛津大学出版社。第 34 页。ISBN 978-0-19-926339-4。https://www.google.com/books?id=_Iwcn4pT0OoC&dq=contemporary... [10]：de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983). 《自由的技术》（Technologies of freedom）。哈佛大学出版社。第 14 页。ISBN 978-0-674-87233-2。https://books.google.com/books?id=BzLXGUxV4CkC&q=Areopagitic... 还有一段详细得多的段落，稍后以如下开头：……
…Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy. Oxford University Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-19-926339-4. https://www.google.com/books?id=_Iwcn4pT0OoC&dq=contemporary... [10]: de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983). Technologies of freedom. Harvard University Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-674-87233-2. https://books.google.com/books?id=BzLXGUxV4CkC&q=Areopagitic... There is another, much more detailed paragraph, which starts a bit later with:…
……版权曾在于审查制度以及保护出版商的利润。然而，美国完全是另一码事。翻开你引用的那个来源的下一页：[16]：de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983). 《自由的技术》（Technologies of freedom）。哈佛大学出版社。第 15 页。ISBN 978-0-674-87233-2。https://archive.org/details/technologiesoffr00ithi/page/15 我们能看到以下内容：美国立法者和法院拒绝了这三种滥用行为……
…copyright was in censorship and the protection of profits for publishers. However, the US is an entirely different story. Turning the page on your preferred source: [16]: de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983). Technologies of freedom. Harvard University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-674-87233-2. https://archive.org/details/technologiesoffr00ithi/page/15 We see the following: American legislators and courts rejected these three abuses…